coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Arkhangelsk in the Arkhangelsk Region.
5.  The applicant sued the Financial Division of the Arkhangelsk Regional administration and the social security services of the Arkhangelsk Region for payment of child support benefits, interest thereon and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 5 January 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk adjourned the examination of the action and requested the applicant to submit evidence and to clarify her claims. This decision was quashed on appeal by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 5 March 2001. The case was remitted for an examination on the merits.
7.  On 5 April 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court awarded the applicant 490.91 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 19 euros) in arrears in respect of child support benefits and dismissed the remainder of the claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001 and became final.
8.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the Arkhangelsk Regional administration lacked necessary funds.
9.   On 13 May 2003 the applicant received the sum in full.
10.  On 2 April 2002 the applicant sued the Arkhangelsk Regional bailiffs' office and the Ministry of Justice for compensation for damage caused by non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001.
11.  On 9 April 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court disallowed the action because it should have been lodged with a court in Moscow. The decision was quashed on appeal on 27 May 2002 and the matter was remitted for an examination on its merits.
12.  On 20 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action because the Arkhangelsk Regional administration lacked funds for the enforcement of the judgment concerned and the bailiffs' office was not at fault for non-enforcement. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 22 July 2002.
4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1956, respectively, and live in the town of Voronezh.
5.  On 28 April 1999 the applicants sued the Savings Bank for arrears and an increased interest on their savings deposited with the bank.
6.  On 9 December 1999 and 21 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh issued judgments. Both judgments were quashed on appeal on 2 March 2000 and 15 February 2001, respectively, and the case was remitted for a fresh examination by the District Court.
7.  On 29 August 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court dismissed the applicants' action. On 18 October 2001 the Voronezh Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment of 29 August 2001 and ordered re-examination of the case.
8.  On 18 December 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court partly accepted the applicants' action, awarded the first applicant 9,350.10 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 342 euros) and the second applicant RUR 25,843.60 (approximately EUR 945) in arrears and dismissed the remainder of their claims.
9.  On 5 March 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 December 2001 in the part concerning payment of arrears, which accordingly became final, but remitted the remainder of the claims for a new examination.
10.  The District Court issued writs of execution and on 20 March 2002 the applicants lodged the writs with bailiffs.
11.  On 29 April 2002 the President of the Voronezh Regional Court lodged before the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court an application for a supervisory review of the judgments of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002.
12.  A supervisory-review hearing was listed for 15 May 2002 and the applicants were summoned.
13.   The applicants arrived to the courthouse on 15 May 2002. They were invited to a courtroom and asked whether they supported the application for a supervisory review. After the applicants had objected to the review they were asked to leave the courtroom.
14.  On 15 May 2002 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court, by way of the supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002 and upheld the judgment of 29 August 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the village of Aleksandrovskoye in the Stavropol Region of the Russian Federation.
5.  On 2 October 1997 the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region granted the applicant's civil action against the penitentiary facility AB-239 of the Ministry of Justice and awarded the applicant 75,623.60 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears and RUR 82,838.91 in interest.
6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 2 November 1997.
7.  On 3 March 1998 enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the facility lacked funds. The enforcement proceedings were closed and re-opened on several occasions. The most recent decision by which the enforcement proceedings were discontinued was taken on 30 March 2001.
8.  On 26 November 2002 the facility paid the applicant RUR 75,623.60. On 12 February 2004 it paid the remainder of the judgment debt, that is RUR 82,838.91.
9.  On 30 December 2005 the Sverdlovsk Regional Treasury paid the applicant RUR 99,555.58 as compensation for depreciation of the amount of RUR 75,623.60 in the period from June 1997 to November 2002. According to the Government, that compensation was assessed at the annual rate of 24%.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Yekaterinburg. He suffers from an occupational disease.
5.  On 15 May 1997 the applicant sued his former employers, private companies, for compensation for health damage.  The Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Yekaterinburg registered his statement of claim and listed the first preliminary hearing for 9 July 1997. Another preliminary hearing was held on 4 September 1997.
6.  Of six hearings listed between 5 February 1998 and 13 June 2000 two hearings were adjourned because the judge was ill or involved in other proceedings and two hearings were postponed for provision of additional evidence and obtaining statements by witnesses.
7.  In June 1999 and January 2000 the applicant asked the District Court to order expert medical examinations. The examinations were not ordered because the applicant withdrew his requests.
8.  On 13 June 2000 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court dismissed the applicant's action as unsubstantiated.
9.   That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 1 August 2000. The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the District Court.
10.  It appears that the District Court received the case-file on 3 October 2000 and listed a hearing for 30 November 2000.  At that hearing the applicant amended his claims and requested the District Court not to perform a medical examination.
11.  Between 16 January and 5 June 2001 the District Court listed three hearings. All of the hearings were adjourned because the judge was ill or involved in other unrelated proceedings.
12.  On 5 June 2001 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court ordered a medical examination of the applicant. The court noted that the defendants should bear the expenses of the examination and stayed the proceedings pending completion.  The applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that the examination was not necessary.
13.  The Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 June 2001 on 7 August 2001.
14.  On 9 July 2002 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court sent the case-file and the applicant's medical records to the Moscow-based Federal expert council on occupational diseases (Федеральный экспертный совет по профзаболеваниям).
15.  In November 2002 the council informed the applicant that the examination had not been carried out because it had not been paid for.
16.  The examination was performed on 10 April 2003 by the Russian Academy of the medical sciences.  The expert report was sent to the District Court on 16 April 2003. A month later the District Court received the case-file.
17.  On 23 May 2003 the case was assigned to another judge and a hearing was fixed for 18 June 2003.  Between 18 June and 4 August 2003 the District Court fixed two hearings which were adjourned because the defendants defaulted and the judge was ill.
18.  On 4 August 2003 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court dismissed the applicant's claims.
19.  That judgment was upheld on 2 October 2003 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow.
5.  On 22 November 1994 the applicant and her husband bought a flat. In addition, they agreed to lend a certain sum to the seller.  After the applicant had paid for the flat, the seller refused to transfer the title and move out. The applicant and her husband sued her for eviction. The seller counterclaimed and requested a court to annul the contract and to order restitutio in integrum.
6.  On 4 June 1997 the Moscow City Court, in the final instance, found for the seller.
7.  In June 1999 the applicant sued the seller for return of the purchase price, repayment of the loan and interest on the amounts outstanding.
8.  On 5 March 2001 the Timiryazevskiy District Court partly accepted the action.
9.  The applicant's representative, Mr Martyanov, appealed to the Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair and that the District Court had not given the applicant's arguments due consideration.
10.  The Moscow City Court listed an appeal hearing for 2 August 2001 and sent summonses to the applicant and her representative by post. The representative received the summons on 23 July 2001. The summons was not delivered to the applicant.
11.  The appeal hearing of 2 August 2001 was adjourned until 20 August 2001 because the parties defaulted. According to the Government, summonses for the hearing listed for 20 August 2001 were mailed to the parties on 13 August 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons were dispatched on 17 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 11 September 2001.
12.  On 20 August 2001 the Moscow City Court adjourned the hearing until 4 September 2001 because the parties did not attend. According to the Government, the Moscow City Court sent summonses to the parties by post on 21 August 2001.
13.  On 4 September 2001 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present.
14.  On 4 October 2001 the applicant received a summons for the hearing that had taken place on 4 September 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons was dispatched on 24 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 4 October 2001.
15.  It appears that the judgment of 5 March 2001, as upheld on appeal on 4 September 2001, has remained unenforced because the seller left Moscow and her current place of residence is unknown.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mirnyy, in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
5.  On 28 November 2002 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic granted the applicant's civil action against the Ministry of Finance and awarded her 127,825 Russian roubles (“RUR”, approximately 4,055 euros).
6.  On 25 December 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.
7.  On 18 February 2003 the applicant's representative submitted a writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.
8.  At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment remained unenforced.
9.  According to the Government, on 25 November 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgments of 28 November and 25 December 2002 and dismissed the applicant's claim.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained on remand in the Diyarbakır prison.
5.  On 10 September 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah.
6.  On 4 October 1994 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge. The same day the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
7.  In an indictment dated 24 October 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and twenty seven others, before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of taking part in its activities. The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
8.  On 21 March 2002 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a new indictment against the applicant and some of his co-accused, charging them with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. On 26 March 2002 the two cases were joined.
9.  State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. Subsequently, the applicant’s case was resumed before the Diyarbakır Assize Court, where the proceedings are still pending.
10.  Between 4 November 1994 and 23 December 2005 the first-instance court held eighty hearings. In the course of the proceedings the court considered the applicant’s detention on remand regularly, either on its own motion or upon the request of the applicant and each time it ordered his continued detention on remand, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.
4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and was living in Afyon. Following his death on 11 October 2002, his wife and children expressed their intention to pursue the application.
5.  On 29 November 1996 the General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant, for the construction of a dam. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant.
6.  On 14 December 1999, following the applicant’s request of 17 June 1997 for increased compensation, the Sandıklı Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him 685,037,145 Turkish liras (TRL) of additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, as of 29 November 1996.
7.  On 18 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 21 January 2002 TRL 2,311,730,000 was paid to the applicant.
8.  On 8 May 2003 the execution office informed the General Directorate of the National Water Board that they still had to pay the applicant the remaining TRL 559,000,000.
9.  On 25 June 2003 the administration filed an objection against the remaining amount of debt, before the Sandıklı Enforcement Court.
10.  On 26 February 2004 the court partially upheld the objection of the administration and concluded that TRL 371,393,824 had to be paid to the applicant. The administration’s request to appeal was dismissed by the court on 13 April 2004.
11.  On 14 May 2004 the General Directorate of the National Water Board paid TRL 261,450,000 to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warsaw.
5.  On 2 December 1998 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action against her former employer in which she requested the annulment of a disciplinary penalty. Subsequently, the applicant was dismissed. In January 1999 she lodged a second claim against her former employer in which she asked for reinstatement.
6.  On 25 June 1999 the court decided to join both cases.
7.  The hearings to be held on 10 December 1999 and 12 January 2000 were adjourned.
8.  Subsequently, hearings were held in September and November 2000.
9.  The next hearing was held on 21 December 2001.
10.  In 2002 the Warsaw District Court held hearings on 18 March and 7 October.
11.  Subsequently, the court held hearings at regular intervals. In 2003 it held in total four hearings. In 2004 eight hearings were held; however, the majority of them were adjourned due to the absence of the defendant or witnesses. On 13 January 2005 the Warsaw District Court held a hearing.
12.  On 11 February 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint about a breach of her right to have her case heard within a reasonable time. She relied on the 2004 Act. On 17 March 2005 the Regional Court dismissed her complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. Some delays were caused by the actions of the defendant. The court finally held that the case was complex. The decision was notified to the applicant on 31 March 2005. The applicant was also informed that the domestic law did not provide any appeal against the decision.
13.  On 11 April 2005 the court held a hearing and on 22 April 2005 it gave judgment. It ordered reinstatement of the applicant and payment of her salary for the period of her unemployment. The defendant appealed.
14.  On 1 December 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment thus became final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Łask-Kolumna, Poland.
5.  In 1983 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. He was subsequently granted a special disability pension from the State Insurance Company (Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeniowy - “PZU”). The applicant was not satisfied with the amount of the pension and on 31 March 1992 he lodged a claim for a reassessment of the amount with the Łask District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The first hearing was held on 21 April 1993.
6.  The trial court held hearings on 17 May and 28 October 1993. A hearing scheduled for 24 December 1993 was adjourned at the defendant’s request. Subsequently, on 23 March 1994 the court held a hearing.
7.  On 30 March 1994 the Łask District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
8.  On 25 August 1994, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case in respect of part of the claims to the Łask District Court.
9.  On 9 December 1994 the District Court held a hearing.
10.  Between 3 February 1995 and 15 March 1996 the court held six hearings. A hearing listed for 9 June 1995 was adjourned as the defendant had not been properly summoned. At a hearing held on 30 June 1995 the applicant requested that an expert opinion be obtained. On 9 August 1995 the applicant withdrew his motion concerning matters of evidence. A hearing scheduled for 20 November 1995 was adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer had not been properly summoned.
11.  On 28 June 1996 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 17 March 1997 the court urged the expert to submit the opinion. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 31 December 1997.
12.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 6 February and 4 March 1998. The trial court held four further hearings between 8 April 1998 and 8 February 1999. At a hearing held on 8 April 1998 the court proposed that the parties conclude a friendly settlement. The proposal was rejected. A hearing scheduled for 5 June 1998 was adjourned as both parties failed to appear before the court.
13.  On 12 February 1999 the District Court gave judgment. Both parties appealed.
14.  On 30 June 1999 the Sieradz Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.
15.  The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) of 21 January 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Tarnowska Wola.
5.  On 23 February 1989 the applicant filed an action with the Tarnobrzeg District Court in which she sought a court order against third parties requiring them to remove an electricity cable they had installed on her land.
6.  Between May and August 1989 three hearings were held. An expert opinion was submitted to the court during that period.
7.  As the parties were subsequently invited to settle the case, between 15 November 1990 and 6 May 1991 the proceedings were stayed at their request in order to negotiate a settlement.
8.  On 29 June 1991 the Tarnobrzeg District Court delivered a judgment dismissing the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed on 28 August 1991.
9.  At the appeal hearing of 28 October 1991 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court decided to stay the proceedings pending the termination of other proceedings for the establishment of the defendant’s ownership of the land. Those proceedings ended on 26 October 1998 with the Supreme Court’s decision rejecting the applicant’s cassation appeal as inadmissible.
10.  On 3 December 1999 the proceedings were resumed upon the applicant’s request of 16 November 1999.
11.  On 23 December 1999 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination, indicating the need to obtain an expert opinion on the exact route of the electricity line across the land.
12.  A hearing was held on 9 February 2000; the court ordered the preparation of the expert opinion and ordered the applicant to pay the expert’s fee within 14 days.
13.  Between February and April 2000 the applicant repeatedly sought exemption from payment of the expert’s fee. She was ordered to pay the fee, failing which the evidence provided by the expert opinion would be excluded. The applicant failed to comply with the order.
14.  On 31 May 2000 the Tarnobrzeg District Court decided to omit the evidence contained in the expert opinion. It examined as evidence the case files of three other sets of related proceedings and on that basis delivered a judgment dismissing the action.
15.  On 7 September 2000 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court agreed with the first-instance court that the defendant had the right of co-ownership to the plot on the date on which the proceedings were instituted and that the applicant’s claim was accordingly inadmissible.
4.  On an unspecified date in 1976 the applicant’s neighbour cut several trees on a plot of land which allegedly belonged to the applicant’s mother. Consequently, proceedings aimed at the determination of ownership of the controversial strip of land were initiated. On 15 April 1981 administrative proceedings concerning the ownership of the land were reopened. On 10 June 1983 the administrative organ referred the dispute to a civil court.
5.  On 29 April 1983 the applicant’s mother died and the applicant became a party to the proceedings.
6.  On 19 June 1988 the Sucha Beskidzka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision. Upon the applicant’s appeal, on 17 February 1989 the Bielsko Biała Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed this decision and remitted the case.
7.  On 22 June 1989 the court stayed the proceedings as the applicant had failed to indicate the addresses of some of the parties to the proceedings.
8.  The applicant on six occasions unsuccessfully requested the court to resume the proceedings. The proceedings were finally resumed by the Sucha Beskidzka District Court on 8 June 1995.
9.  On 9 and 27 June 1995 the court held hearings. On 5 June 1996 the proceedings were again stayed. They were resumed on 11 September 1996.
10.  On 7 and 21 January 1997 the Sucha Beskidzka District Court held hearings. On the latter date the court ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. On 19 November 1997 the court ordered the expert to pay a fine because he had failed to submit his report within the prescribed time‑limit.
11.  Further hearings were held on 19 December 1997, 23 September 1998 and 2 October 1998.
12.  On 2 October 1998 the Sucha Beskidzka District Court gave a decision. On 8 April 1999 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal for failure to comply with formal requirements.
13.  On 21 May 1999 the Bielsko Biała Regional Court rejected the applicant’s interim appeal.